The Tamil Nadu government has told the Madras High Court that there are 79,395 habitations in 12,525 villages in the State and since the number of habitations differ from one village panchayat to another, it would not be proper to allocate an equal amount of funds to them under the Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam- II (AGAMT-II).
The government has also refuted the charge of having sidelined the elected office-bearers of the village panchayats by calling for e-tenders to develop the infrastructure in every village under the AGAMT-II and by empowering the Collectors to accept the tenders called by the Additional Collectors.
Advocate-General R. Shunmugasundaram told a Division Bench of Justices D. Krishnakumar and T.V. Thamilselvi that the government had not usurped the powers of the elected representatives, and in fact, it had ordered that only block-level committees comprising the panchayat presidents would identify the projects to be undertaken.
Responding to a writ petition filed against a Government Order issued on March 8 for implementation of AGAMT-II, the A-G said that the scheme was implemented in the State between 2006 and 2011. It was aimed at improving basic infrastructure in all village panchayats in phases over five years.
The works to be undertaken under the scheme include laying of cement concrete roads, provision of street lights, rejuvenation of ponds, establishing rural libraries, improving burial grounds/cremation sheds, creating community/school sports centres with required equipment. It was aimed at holistic development of villages.
Therefore, allocating an equal amount of funds to the village panchayats with a varied number of habitations and population would lead to disparity in development and skewed distribution of assets. To ensure a balanced distribution of funds for creation of basic infrastructure in rural areas, it was imperative to consider both habitation and population, he said.
The government decided to allocate 30% of funds under AGAMT-II for rejuvenation of waterbodies; 25% for creation and upgrade of streets and lanes; 10% for facilities like Samathuva (common) burial grounds; 15% for infrastructure in schools and public utilities; 10% for clean and green villages; and 10% for livelihood and marketing facilities.
It would be ensured that all villages were provided with necessary facilities, the A-G assured the court and said the district rural development authorities had been entrusted with the tender process because the village panchayat secretaries, whose basic qualification was only Class X, would be ill equipped to handle e-tendering.
The court was also told that the writ petitioner, K. Chellaperumal, would in no way be prejudiced by the Government Order under challenge and he had filed the case by portraying himself as a social activist though he was actually a ward member of the Dharmapuram village panchayat in Kanniyakumari district.
After hearing the A-G, the Division Bench adjourned the hearing by two weeks to enable the petitioner to file a rejoinder.
Published - November 02, 2022 01:13 am IST
